Re: Many vs. few new gTLDs - a graphical representation

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

Look up what an "ad hominem" argument is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_circumstantial

My personal wealth is secure, independent of whether new gTLDs are
adopted. It matters more to me how .com is operated by VeriSign, than
whether new gTLDs are introduced. The introduction of .info and .biz
didn't cause my wealth to decline, indeed the opposite happened. I just
happen to be in the group that thinks the "few gTLDs, each with a lot
of active domains" is a better design than "many gTLDs, each with a
smaller number domains", for a variety of reasons (I've outlined mine).


If you have an argument to make that many new gTLDs are a good thing,
you're free to do so. The community can then decide which design should
be adopted. Calling one a "kook" or labeling them as speculators (which
is funny given the large number of .info and .biz domains were
registered speculatively, and not by me), doesn't contribute much to
the debate, except to demonstrate a lack of imagination. At least I
tried to show some imagination, with a few thought-provoking and
striking pictures. :) New arguments do contribute to the debate.
Name-calling does not.

By the way, "speculators" are not a bad thing per se. If someone else
happens to get to a domain name before you, or paid  more for it than
you did in an auction, and is not breaking any registration rules (like
UDRP, etc.) or laws, and refuses to sell it to you, they are not doing
anything wrong if they're not using the domain name in a matter that
you desire. "Speculation" in many markets makes them more efficient, in
that their pursuit of self-interest causes markets to reflect all
information in prices, brings about equilibria, and ensures that goods
are used in a manner that maximizes their long-term profitability.

Speculators are a *healthy* part of capitalism. Market-based economies
couldn't exist without them. Indeed, it's the absence of speculators
that characterizes the most unhealthy centrally planned economies, like
the old Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, North Korea, etc.

And, for the record, I buy more domains than I sell. :) And I own a lot
fewer domains than such "hoarders" as P&G, who are doing nothing
substantial with their Beautiful.com domain, for example. What
anti-speculation rules do you propose to protect us from such "bad
behaviour" that P&G is supposedly engaging in, "hoarding" such
"beautiful" domain names??

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/